Whats the point Mik ? Does the end justify the means ? Is that it ?
My answer to that is, A the point is your sitting here in a free country saying that the good guys (allied) where just as responsible for atrocities as the bad guys (axis).. yes agreed.. if you tried to fight a war with one armed tied behind your back while your opponent is kicking you in the balls, your going to lose..Point B does the end justify the means... yes... your sitting here complaining about the allied tactics, your not a slave , you can do want you want, Germany is still with us, England is still with us, Russia is still with us, Japan is still with us, France is still with us, etc etc you get my point ? The term total war wasnt coined by England, but they certainly know how to fight it... thats why the Commonwealth is still around after all these years..
Point C .. is that it ? Yes i think so, other than to say that Gumby sucks.. but im willing to defend your right to access him because after all we do live in a free world... well most of us... think about that when you next defend the good politician Hitler or his eastern counterpart the benevolent Tojo ( next time your feeling guilty about the A bomb read Sandakan the death march or Surviving the sword or maybe Weary Dunlops diaries)
BTW Mik those three books i mentioned are about " our boys" in japanese pow camps, not to many made it home...
Shot at 2007-07-23
these blokes did they were a few lucky ones, the bloke reading the paper is my mothers brother, my uncle, guess what hes reading about ? a damn war atrocity called the A bomb, maybe you can see the tear in his eye ?
I CAN see the tear, and i know what he is saying too, can read lips.
"Shit fellas, why, I'd a given my OTHER testicle, to see that!".
Some of the points you make are a trifle gungho Blackstump, a trifle ott, but
"Germany is still with us, England is still with us, Russia is still with us, Japan is still with us, France is still with us".
YEP. Pretty much does the people talking about allied war crimes, in the eye. We took the fascistic barstards down, and WHEN they were down, did we stamp on their throats?. Did we herd them into concentration camps?. Did we "offer" their women jobs as "Comfort women"?.
Hell, we didn't even make them pay their debts left unpaid from the PREVIOUS war!.
"If you'll fight the British Isles, well, you'll fight the British Race". Even the black sheep of the family turns up eventually!.
What's the point = well you didn't take my advice, you shoulda listend to Bill Hicks and not read my post...
But What's the point also = I can see that without a long and frustrating debate I'm probably not going to be understood. So I can't see the point ...
With sincere respect Stump you're putting many words in my mouth and, again, I don't 'see the point' responding to that.
Though, you've touched enough of a nerve for me to point out that you absolutely do not know the first thing about how I feel in relation to those that fought and the society that I live in or those that have fought for it. I've not touched on this in what I've written and any implication to the contrary is all manner of wrong.
In relation to 'ends and means' I think your response unwittingly provides further example and proof of my former point. Namely that there *often* isn't that much difference between good and bad. You're no doubt an 'ally' and yet the kinds of rhetoric you're using are glaringly similar to those used by the Nazi's and other 'bad guys' to gain and maintain power. If you can't see that, repectfully I have to shrug and leave it at that... In my reckoning all of the big 'evils' of history are predicated to a significant extent on 'ends justifies means' ...
Feel free to point out what a fool I am but I can't see a huge difference in Hitler's rhetoric for a 'final solution' and the allied justification for dropping TWO A bombs or indeed even targeting a single civilian. I think we *want* to see a difference and I think as the victors we have the luxury of deciding to choose our point of view. It doesn't make it any less wrong.
THIS is the question:
Killing civilians to pursue military and political goals. Is that right for anyone in any circumstances? For me the answer is categorically no. But that's not the point! The point is: Why is it ok for us 'good guys' and not ok for those 'bad guys'... ?
It seems your objections are two fold. One you want to say that we weren't 'that' bad. And also you want to say we had just cause (ends justify means)... Well, without getting to far into it, it's interesting to note that if it wasn't for the *good ol'* allies oppression of the German people post WW1 that WW2 *may* never have happened. Kind of like beating up on a tired angry dog and then blaming it when it bites you.
But how dare I suggest that 'we', the good guys, are anything less than justified and good? And I'm sorry but appeals to the memory of those that fought and suffered is just not a good reason to toe the line. And that doesn't devalue them in any way because it doesn't change what they did or the reasons why.
But on that point ... why should we draw the line at WW2? We have been *benevolently* 'fighting' to protect our "freedom" for centuries right?
Of course what I call benevolence others may look back through history and call oppression and murder ....
A case in point: How happy are the natives from our own country (particularly those from Tasmania - if you can find any!) with their *freedom* and *security* ?
Ask yourself and be honest, from their point of view how different are WE from a Nazi Germany? We rounded them up into camps, slaughtered non-combatants, and worse, we stole their children...! On the contrary how do we earn the right to suppose ourselves right and just? Actually, we are the decendents and/or the legacy of occupiers.
How's that moral high-ground going?
I seem to remember saying something about the lesser of two evils, but it's evil nonetheless and again what shits me is all the holier than thou BS that gets about.
The first step to getting anything right is honestly accepting the mistakes, realising and accepting how you got it wrong. That doesn't detract from those that did it right for the right reasons, it just tells the truth. It's not complicated. And IIRC that was pretty much the basis of my original point...
Feel free to point out what a fool I am but I can't see a huge difference in Hitler's rhetoric for a 'final solution'
What rhetoric would that be? When did Hitler or anyone talk about 'final solution' in public or in media? It was not official, it was forbidden to use cameras there or talk about it, though some did anyway. It was rumours that circulated, not rhetoric.
The papers and records from the conference that settled the 'final solution' should have been destroyed, most where..
mikwarleo wrote:
Killing civilians to pursue military and political goals. Is that right for anyone in any circumstances? For me the answer is categorically no. But that's not the point! The point is: Why is it ok for us 'good guys' and not ok for those 'bad guys'... ?
Never right, but the one who punch first better be prepared for the reaction, one only have 2 cheeks.. And as for Jews and other.... How do one justify or even comprehend such evilness, or may I say madness? Bombing a town, is horrible, but to shuff man, women and children into gas chambers and crematory’s, is a level higher. Next train... We have a schedule to keep
mikwarleo wrote:
But on that point ... why should we draw the line at WW2? We have been *benevolently* 'fighting' to protect our "freedom" for centuries right?
Yes, why should we, it’s a thread about "Hitler the mad man", turn it into whatever, or plastic donkys... None have stopped you so far, though I have recommended you to start such SEPARATE threads.
You know one may talk of how evil my dog was without bringing up the whole worlds evil in a comparison. (The dogs mother was second cousin to his father so no wonder he was mad and finally shot, do I feel bad about that?)
There are ofcose much evil in the world.
mikwarleo wrote:
Ask yourself and be honest, from their point of view how different are WE from a Nazi Germany? We rounded them up into camps, slaughtered non-combatants, and worse, we stole their children...! On the contrary how do we earn the right to suppose ourselves right and just? Actually, we are the decendents and/or the legacy of occupiers.
This is a subject in whom I know little or nothing about, but..
Right and just? Do you advocate collective punishment, or rather "inherited collective punishment" and "inherited collective guilt"?
So, how come none persecute or punish the children of the Nazy and war criminals? Because its wrong maybe?
Are you suggesting that the one with no "inherited guilt" should be the only or first one to through the stone?
Are there any Human to say anything at all if we use your line of thinking, humans probably helped killed of the Homo neanderthalensis and possibly also (suspicion) Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens idaltu, think about it?
If so, We are all "inherited guilty" from our ancestors of "evil people". So shall we all shut up then? Im sorry im lost, I thought it was a thread about Hitler the mad man.
I be silent now Mik, I just don’t have your highly developed morale.
I can kindof understand where both of these arguements are going.
One is about allied oppression.
Internment camps, the treaty of Versailles, and many other things could be used against the allies. There are even many books on allied crimes before after and during the war. I read one recently about a German unit searching through a canadian detachment's dead and finding direct orders not to take any prisoners at all or it would "delay the advance." Or the Battle of Crete where many German Fallschirmjagers were brutally killed by the partisans, found cut to pieces or their testicles chopped off, which may be just as justifiable as the German defense of Berlin but that does not make it right and that may have led to Germany's harsh occupation. Or American airborne troops also ordered to not take prisoners on D-Day because they are too small a unit to keep them under watch. Or the sinking of a Japanese carrier with orders from an American General told the planes to drop bombs on an already sinking ship and "leave none living." Or even better, Russian troops being outfitted with explosive ammunition, which is against Geneva to quote, "see where their rounds were hitting." used in the war in Finland and later against German troops.The bombing of Dresden, was there really any point to bombing a town that makes toys? Was there a point to the Atomic bomb? Wasn't Japan's leader held against his will because of fear that he may announce a surrender? Weren't SS troops executed anyway if they surrendered? (not to say that it wasn't for good reason but still, there were a lot of SS troops). British Airborne captured in Holland said their hosts followed strict Geneva code, then captured men from the same unit and killed them on the side of a road.
There are many atrocities in war that everyone must deal with, but it's ironic that men that had commited war crimes on the allied side roamed free as we tried the Germans at Nuremburg. Of course the Germans executed the biggest war crime in history, the Holocaust. But did the ENTIRE German army participate in the killing of Jews? That's just like calling every German in the German army a Nazi. Were every single one of the Germans volunteers? No, so that just rules out a good portion of them already. You want to know what else in interesting? Many of the citizens of Berlin didn't even know about what Hitler was doing to Jews, he was taking them away, maybe he was just deporting them? You don't always know what someone in power can do, and I definetly wouldn't have thought a single human can be so cruel. You can also try most of the Russian army for counter-war crimes for vengeful actions. The Russians raped every woman and child they could find, not even the elderly were spared, ages 70+, and there are many reports of Russians raping girls as young as 15- to death. And please stop with the political cliche American dream stuff, it just makes it sound extremely corny and it makes it sound way too nationalist. Hitler was a nationalist, you don't want to be like Hitler do you?
The main point of my post is that there are never any good or bad guys in a war, war is hell, and everyone does bad things in a time of war. It can bring out the best and the worst of the human race and it's flaws, and we just have to learn from it and take the arguements from both sides and combine them into a linear unbiased story about a war that changed the world.
I CAN see the tear, and i know what he is saying too, can read lips.
"Shit fellas, why, I'd a given my OTHER testicle, to see that!".
Well that's pretty wrong to say in a few ways but whatever.
Back on topic, Hitler was a great politician, he brought Germany out of the worst depression in history very quickly. The rest of Europe and America were in a depression but they weren't forced to lick dirty oily water of the ground to survive, ours wasn't as bad in comparison, also Germany was in that depression longer, due to the treaty of Versailles. He couldn't use genocides as propaganda in some cases because they were kept secret as his own people would go against him.
His plan to invade America would have been very ambitious. If he had won in Russia and taken Sweden in the planned Sverige offensive, he would have had more than enough supplies to finish off Britain (no offense but logistically he would have) due to access to the expansive oil fields of Asia, and he would have linked up with the Japanese and MAY have helped them against us after taking Britain out of the picture. Taking Russia would also give him even more working men to make tanks, ammunition and desperately needed aircraft to mount such an ambitious invasion. He may even have built up a navy o.O (Multiple Bismarcks anyone?). And also, I almost forgot, by taking Britain out of the picture I mean Africa also, which would again, give him more oil. He could also draft many Russians or actually train them and use them to occupy the countries so nothing gets out of hand. And by then, the offensive would be in 1946 give or take. And America would not use the Atom bomb because if they did, it would have led to another world war with Germany again no doubt. We maybe would use them if Germany started to gain the upper hand on American armed forces but it would drastically change relations and as we've seen in history, Hitler has no problems with mass murder either. Hitler was also working on a dirty bomb himself wasn't he? Tell me if I'm wrong there because that would have greatly tipped the scales in his favor by this time. But he also had V2 rockets being worked on so the entire fate of the war, in my opinion, which Churchill overlooked saying that massive land armies were bad and only predicting Russia lasting for a month, fell on Russia's shoulders and thank god they prevailed, otherwise this entire what-if would have been possible.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
